June, 2003
Volume 5, Issue 2
The Social Psychology of the Creation of a Sports
Fan Identity: A Theoretical Review of the Literature
Beth Jacobson
University of Connecticut
ABSTRACT
A gap exists in the current literature on identity formation with regards to sports fans, as
the current literature base does not adequately address the creation of fan identity.
Instead, social scientific research focuses largely on the effects of fandom, for example,
the violence and aggression associated with being a fan. A fan identity, as with any group
identity, is beneficial to the individual in that it may provide a sense of community.
Following the symbolic interactionism traditions, identity theory (Stryker, 1987) aims to
understand why people do what they do, or why they make the choices that they do.
Therefore, sports fandom is an appropriate venue for identity theory. Identity creation is
discussed in terms of socialization and relational factors.
Introduction
A gap exists in the current literature on identity formation with regard to sports. The
current sociology of sport literature does not adequately address the creation of fan
identity. Social science research on sport fans focuses largely on the effects of fandom,
for example, the violence and aggression, which may result from being a fan. Little is
known, however, about the process of becoming a fan. This therefore raises a compelling
question, how do individuals form sport fan identities? More specifically, this review
examines the issues and theoretical concepts surrounding the ways in which individuals
develop and maintain fan identities. An examination of identity formation among sport
fans is beneficial in that it unites two previously unrelated literature bases, namely
identity formation and sport sociology. Furthermore, this application will stretch the
bounds of identity theory by testing its limits, which should account for a more
comprehensive theory.
1
A fan identity, as with any group identity, is beneficial to the individual in that it may
provide a sense of community. Zillmann, Bryant and Sapolsky (1989) highlight other
benefits of fandom, including the development of diverse interests, the minimal skill level
necessary for participation, and the low cost. They also note that fandom brings activities,
such as football, to more sectors of society, including the very young, the very old, the ill,
and those who simply lack the necessary athletic ability required for participation.
Fandom allows individuals to be a part of the game without requiring any special skills
(Branscombe & Wann, 1991a). In addition, fandom offers such social benefits as feelings
of camaraderie, community and solidarity, as well as enhanced social prestige and selfesteem (Zillmann et al.). Sports fandom further affects individual personal development
by helping people learn to cope with emotions and feelings of disappointment
(Branscombe & Wann, 1991a). “It appears that sports fanship can unite and provide
feelings of belongingness that are beneficial to individuals and to the social setting in
which they live” (Zillmann et al., p. 251). However, sport fans have not generally been
portrayed positively, especially in social science research. This is especially true of
males, who are often stigmatized because of their fandom (Gantz & Wenner, 1995). Fans
are criticized for their apparent lack of physical fitness as well as for being passive or
lazy (Zillmann et al.), to the high levels of violence among fans, including, but not
limited to hooliganism and riotous victory celebrations (Kutcher, 1983; Levy, 1989;
Gantz and Wenner, 1995). Debates on the benefits of fandom are ongoing, however
research has failed to completely address the questions as to why and how someone
initially becomes a fan.
Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory
Within social psychology, there are two dominant theory of identity – identity theory
(Stryker, 1977; Burke, 1980) and social identity theory (Tajfel 1970; Tajfel and Turner,
1979). Identity theory is a direct derivation of McCall and Simmons (1978) role-identity
theory, which suggests that individuals will base their actions on how they like to see
themselves and how they like to be seen by others. Therefore, the role-identity requires
two components, specifically, the role itself and the identity to be associated with that
role (Petkus, 1996). With this in mind, identity theory is rooted in the concept of roles
and role-identities. Social identity theory, however, is based on Festinger’s (1954) social
comparison theory, which suggests that individuals will strive to attach themselves to
other individuals who are similar or slightly better. Social identity theory, therefore,
focuses on the ways in which individuals perceive and categorize themselves, based on
their social and personal identities. Rather than emphasizing role and role behaviors,
social identity theory emphasizes group processes and inter-group relations. Both of these
theories posit that, theoretically, the self is multifaceted, dynamic, and is generally
responsible for mediating the relationship between social structures and individuals
behavior (Hogg et al, 1995). However, the social identity theory has come to dominate
the study of intergroup relations (Brown and Capozza, 2000), while identity theory
focuses on the concept of role identities.
Generally, according to identity theorists, social identity “refers to the ways in which
individuals and collectives are distinguished in their social relations with other
2
individuals or collectives” (Jenkins 1996:4). Social identity is our understanding of “who
we are”. One of the first things we do when we meet someone is “locate them on our
social map” – or identify them. Social identities can also be considered social selves.
These social selves are socially constructed and categorized in ways that are accepted by
individuals as descriptive of themselves or their peer group (Thoits and Virshup 1997).
On the other hand, personal identities are “self descriptions referring to unique or highly
specific details of [an individual’s] biography” (Thoits and Virshup 1997:107). Identity
theory (Stryker 1987) is derived from the symbolic interactionist perspective of role
choice behavior. This theory seeks to understand why people do what they do, or why
they make the choices that they do. Therefore, the most appropriate applications of this
theory are ones in which alternative actions are available to the subject, however he/she
may only choose one of the alternatives. Identity theory recognizes that social structure
and social interaction are both equally constant in limiting, rather than determining,
human action (Borgatta and Borgatta 1992:871).
Identity is defined as “a set of meanings applied to the self in a social role or
situation defining what it means to be who one is” (Burke 1991: 837). Choices in roles
are seen as a consequence of identity salience, which is a specification of the general
category of self. Furthermore, identity salience is a consequence of commitment.
Therefore, commitment impacts the identity salience, which impacts role choice
(Borgatta and Borgatta 1992:873). Identity is based on the categorizations that others
have for an individual as well as the individual’s acceptance of this categorization
(Stryker 1968). Furthermore, identities exist only insofar as individuals are participants in
structured social interaction (Stryker 1968). It can be suggested that identities are tied to
roles, or positions, in organized social relationships. As individual identities are
hierarchically organized, these identities will vary in terms of which is the most salient.
Consequently, the self is organized based on this salience hierarchy. Therefore, choices
are based on the salience of an identity, which is then positioned in the identity hierarchy.
One of the main components of identity theory is the ability of the self to take itself
as an object, thereby classifying or categorizing itself in relation to other classifications or
categorizations (Stets and Burke, 2000; Hogg et al. 1995). In identity theory, this is
referred to as identification, and “the core of an identity is the categorization of the self as
an occupant of a role”(Stets and Burke, 2000:2 of 14). It is through the process of
identification that an identity is formed. Identification of people and things in the social
world, and subsequent definitions of their meanings, is a key component of symbolic
interactionism, and for human interactions (McCall and Simmons 1966). Identification
then incorporates the meanings and expectations associated with roles and performances,
which ultimately forms a set of guidelines for behavior.
Identification encompasses two types of identity. Social identity is identification in
terms of broader social categories, while personal identity is defined in terms of
categories that are more unique to the individual. In other words, “personal identities
serve as the pegs upon which social identities can be hung” (McCall and Simmons 1966:
65). The personal identity can also be seen as the set of meanings that are tied to the self
and help to sustain it, and these self-meanings carry across roles and situations (Stets and
3
Burke, 2000). Personal identities also penetrate social identities and carry into the group
and into group identities. Furthermore, Strauss (1959) noted that identification requires
an organized link to others, either formally or symbolically.
A concern of identity theorists is the effect of individual position within the larger
social structure, in an effort to understand which identity an individual will activate (Stets
and Burke, 2000). Identity commitment (or identity salience) is composed of the number
of networked ties an individual has as well as the strength of these ties (Stets and Burke,
2000). Stryker (1968), in addressing identity salience, hypothesized that individuals will
seek out opportunities to enact a highly salient identity. This hypothesis suggests that
identities require more than simply a situational activation, however that the individual
must also have the desire to activate them.
Social identity theory suggests that identities are tied to group membership. “Social
identity theory is intended to be a social psychological theory of intergroup relations,
group processes and the social self” (Hogg et al, 1995: 259). The basic premise of this
theory is that identity is formed based on group membership (Hogg et al, 1995; Brown,
2000: 746-747). Tajfel (1981; see also Tajfel and Turner 1979) suggests that identity is
also a function of the value and emotional attachment placed on a particular group
membership. Morrereover, individuals strive to maintain positive social identities, which
are primarily derived from favorable comparisons to group members and non-members.
Social identity theory has three primary components – categorization, identification, and
comparison.
What we referred to as identification under identity theory (the process by which an
identity is formed), is known as self-categorization under social identity theory . Social
categorization can be seen as a “system of orientation which helps to create and define
the individual’s place in society” (Tajfel, 1981: 255, see also Berger and Luckmann,
1967). In other words, we categorize individuals to better understand and relate to them.
Keeping in mind that an individual can be a member of many different groups, he/she is
likely to have a social identity for each group. That is to say that the specific group one is
interacting with at any given time will dictate their current social identity. Social identity
theory further suggests that upon joining a group, individuals will think of that group as
superior to any other group (or out-group), thereby enhancing their own self-image.
Social identity theory suggests that individuals use social groups and group
membership to maintain and support their personal and collective identities (Tajfel and
Turner 1979; Tajfel 1981; Funk 1998). As stated earlier, personal identities within
identity theory are self-descriptions referring to specific, biographic, personal details
(Thoits and Virshup 1997). Within social identity theory, personal identities are derived
fromo self-classifications, which in turn are based on interpersonal similarities and
differences with other group members (Funk 1998). However, similarly to identity
theory, these personal identities are private and unique to the individual. The social
identities within identity theory are comparable to the collective identities within social
identity theory. Collective identities represent self-classification in terms of comparisons
4
with members of certain categories, such as race, class, etc. (Brown and Truner 1981;
Funk 1989).
As Hogg et al (1995) note, both theories address the structure and function of a self
that is socially constructed, however they do so in very different ways. Identity theory
focuses more explicitly on the structure and function of an individual’s identity as they
relate to the behavioral roles they play in society. On the other hand, social identity
theory focuses on the structure and function of identities as they relate to group
membership (Hogg et al 1995). Therefore, while the social identity theory perspective is
concerned with intergroup relations and group processes, identity theory is more
concerned with the roles individuals play in society and the identities that these roles
confer (Hogg et al 1995).
Most sport fan researchers have focused exclusively on social identity theory;
however, I argue that identity theory should be used as well. Within identity theory, the
process of identity formation requires the individual to define him/herself in terms of the
social relationship. In the creation of a fan identity, the individual will develop either a
personal identity, a social identify, or both. Identity theory suggests that individuals have
choices and it examines why they make the choices they do. The questions that arises and
remain to be answered are, why, and how have they chosen a specific team? Furthermore,
if identity is created through interaction, what types of interaction led the individual to
make the choices he/she made?
Sports and Sport Fan Research
Recent literature on sport fans has addressed possible reasons as to why individuals
find sports to be enjoyable. These reasons include benefits associated with self esteem, an
escape from everyday life, entertainment, economic factors, aesthetic or artistic qualities,
group affiliation and family needs; however, why one particular team is chosen over
another, and how this affiliation forms, is still not adequately addressed. Wann (1995)
explores this notion to a degree. He focuses on college students and recreational softball
players and attempts to determine what motivates people to become fans. Notably, Wann
does state that his attempt to understand the motivations of individuals to become sport
fans is a preliminary study.
Much of the existing research on sport fans focuses predominantly on college sports,
as opposed to professional sports (Wann & Dolan, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c; Branscombe &
Wann, 1991a; Hirt et al., 1992; Wann, Royalty & Roberts, 2000; Wann and Branscombe,
1990; Hocking, 1982; Madrigal, 1995; Deegan & Stein, 1978). Wann (1995) interviewed
university students and recreational softball players regarding their feelings towards
sports in general, without distinguishing between professional and college level. Miller
(1976) used the same methodology and target population (university students). Madrigal
(1995) focused on fan satisfaction during college basketball games. Finally, Wann,
Tucker, and Schrader (1996) allowed respondents to freely choose either a professional
or amateur team in their interviews. Focus on professional sports and specifically
professional football does exist, but is less common than research on college students (see
5
for example, Wann and Schrader 1996; Jones 1997a; Lewis, 2001; Lindsay, 2000). This
distinction is necessary in that it can be hypothesized that college students will form
natural, although possible temporary allegiances, which are not necessarily seen at the
professional level.
Although a number of studies have been carried out on sport fans and sports
spectators, few of them conceptualize fan or spectator, and any conceptualizations that
are provided are not used with any consistency. This is problematic in that spectators may
not necessarily be fans. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for researchers to use the terms
interchangeably, as does Smith (1988), for example, which could result in further
confusion. Any research that examines sport fans or spectators must first define fan and
spectator to avoid any ambiguity and confusion. This is especially important when
exploring the reasons for team identification, as there are different degrees of fandom or
spectatorship.
To briefly explore some of the existing definitions of sport fans, sports involvement
can be seen as revolving around the concept of perceived interest and the personal
importance of sports to an individual (Shank & Beasley, 1998). Jones (1997b) suggests
that spectators will observe a sport and then forget about it, while fans will have more
intensity and will devote parts of every day to the team or the sport itself. Fanship has
also been defined as “an affiliation in which a great deal of emotional significance and
value are derived from group membership” (Hirt, Zillman, Erickson & Kennedy, 1992:
725). Spinrad (1981) defines a fan as “the person who thinks, talks about and is oriented
towards sports even when [the fan] is not actually observing, or reading, or listening to an
account of a specific sports event” (354). Pooley (1978) suggests the need to differentiate
between a fan and a spectator, claiming that the difference is a matter of degree of
engrossment and passion. Madrigal (1995) suggests that fans represent an association that
provides the individual with a great deal of emotional and value significance. Lastly,
Anderson (1979) notes that since it is derived from the word ‘fanatic’, a fan can be
defined as an ardent devotee of sport, or as an individual possessed frequently by an
excessive enthusiasm for sport. In perhaps the most definitive conceptualizations, Wann,
Melnick, Russell and Page (2001) outline the differences between a fan and a spectator as
well as the differences between highly and lowly identified fans. They define a sport fan
as “individuals who are interested in and follow a sport, team, and/or athlete. Sport
spectators … are those individuals who actively witness a sporting event in person or
through some form of media (radio, television, etc.)” (Wann et al., 2001, 2). This
sampling of conceptualizations shows the wide range of definitions as well as the
similarities and overlap. Those researchers who do differentiate between spectators and
fans agree that the difference is in the degree of devotion to the team or a player. Those
who do not differentiate between these terms tend to refer to the fan (or spectator) in
highly devoted terms.
Sports and Identity
To better understand sports, sport fandom and identity, it is necessary to understand
these factors on two distinct theoretical levels. The first of these levels is an interpersonal
6
or network level and include the influences of friends and family member on identity.
Also included in this level are the effects of the community, including the possibility that
geographic areas may tend to force local teams on the residents. The second level is a
symbolic level. Included in this level are the team specific factors, such as personnel and
unique factors, including the team name, logo, colors, and fight song.
Interpersonal/Network Level of Identity
Among the hypothesized factors of identity formation and maintenance is the
concept of socialization. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that individuals become
fans through socialization, primarily by friends and family . It is possible that this
socialization can be traced back to childhood sports socialization. While it once would
have been fair to say that sport fans were predominantly male, it is not necessarily true
today. However, boys especially are traditionally socialized into sports at a young age
(Chorbajian, 1978; Smith, 1979). Boys are introduced to athletics at early ages, through
both parental influences and marketing means, such as bedding and clothing, which are
likely to have athletic themes or emblems on them (Chorbajian, 1978). Other
socialization agents which make a strong contribution to sport socialization include the
community, toys, peers and role models (Giuliano, Popp & Knight 2000). Dietz-Uhler,
Harrick, End and Jacquemotte (2000) found that women were more likely to be sport fans
because they attended or watched games with friends and family while men were fans
because they played sports. Therefore, female fan identity may be, at least in part,
dependent on her network of friends and family.
In addition to socialization, individuals could become fans as a way to achieve group
membership or be a part of a collective unit. Collective behavior can be loosely defined
as the behavior of two or more individuals who are acting collectively, whereby each
influences the actions of the other (Blumer, 1969). Furthermore, Blumer suggests that
there is a need to differentiate between the collectivities in small groups as well as from
culturally defined behavior, especially since a group is more than just a collection of
individuals. Therefore, collective behavior could be thought of as specific to larger
groups with intent.
A primary benefit of collective behavior is the sense of belonging that arises with
group identification. Collective identities are known for their ability to give individuals a
sense of belonging to a group. One dominant purpose of collective identities is to define
borders by differentiating between “us” and “them,” thereby creating both opponents and
solidarities (Snow & Oliver, 1995). In addition, the sense of the collective supports,
reinforces, influences, inhibits, or suppresses actions taken by an individual (Blumer).
Boire (1980) reinforces this by noting that the fan considers him/herself to be a part of the
team, sharing in its glory and agony of defeat.
Crowds are often studied as organizations of collectives, especially in terms of
sports. For example, when the game begins, the crowd becomes a collective unit (Allison,
1979). Furthermore, the sports crowd can be seen as a regular, scheduled group of
partisan and neutral supporters with relatively predictable actions, who are frequent
7
participants in collective behaviors (Mann, 1989). Aveni (1977) defines a crowd simply
as a collection of individuals and notes that crowd behavior is largely understood within
the context of individual behaviors as part of a crowd. Zillmann et al., (1989) expand on
the notion of crowds and collective behavior by relating them to sport fans. They suggest
that sportsfanship can unite individuals and provide them with feelings of belongingness
and solidarity. Melnick (1993) agrees, noting that sports crowds allow fans to enrich their
social psychological lives through quasi-intimate relationships and a sense that they truly
belong to the group. A sports crowd is unique in that the group already possesses
commonalties (allegiances and loyalties to the team) even before becoming a collective
unit.
Symbolic Level of Identity
In addition to the interpersonal method, fandom can also be created by the desire to
be a part of the environment created by a winning team – “jumping on the bandwagon”.
Stemming from Heider’s (1958) “balance theory,” fans relate to a team using Social
Identity Theory processes known as BIRGing (basking in reflected glory) and CORFing
(cutting off reflective failures). The primary assumption of this theory is that individuals
will seek to resolve attitudes that are not balanced or equitable. With this in mind, he
notes that balanced relationships are more satisfactory than unbalanced or inequitable
relationships (Heider). Both BIRGing and CORFing stem from Heider’s balance theory,
which focuses on interattitudinal and interpersonal consistency. This theory suggests that
individuals will organize their thoughts about others in a balanced way and that they will
strive to restore balance in unbalanced situations (Snyder et al., 1986; Ciadini, Borden,
Thorne, Walker, Freeman and Sloan 1976).
Fandom, as a way to relate to a team, is also a way of relating to others, and when
relating to others, individuals generally tend to surround themselves with others who are
known to be successful (Snyder et al., 1986). BIRGing can be defined as the tendency of
individuals to publicize their connection with successful others, when they have not
contributed to the other’s success (Hirt et al., 1992; Ciadini et al.). In relating BIRGing to
athletics, Ciadini et al. have noted that more students exhibited an affiliation with a
university sports team after a victory as opposed to a defeat. Therefore, balance is
ensured because the team has done well and the fan is happy with that result. If the fan
felt differently, then the situation would be more unbalanced or more inequitable. A
second form of relating to a team is CORFing, which refers to the tendency of others to
avoid being connected to unsuccessful others. This avoidance typically involves
individuals distancing themselves, physically, mentally or emotionally, with the intent of
avoiding any negative relationships with the unsuccessful others (Hirt et al.; Snyder et al.,
1986). Therefore, BIRGing is an enhancement tactic while CORFing is more of an image
protection tactic (Hirt et al.). Researchers have noted that these concepts also serve as
ego-enhancement or protection techniques, which is to say that they can be used to boost
self-esteem (Wann & Branscombe, 1990, Wann, 1993).
BIRGing and CORFing have been predominately examined in university settings and
could possible reflect more of an attachment to the school than the team. Therefore, it is
8
necessary to test these on attachments to professional sports teams that are not necessarily
connected to other attachments, such as location of the university. Madrigal (1995) noted
that fans of college women’s basketball teams were more likely to BIRG if they self
described themselves as being highly identified. He further found that BIRGing was not
directly related to post-game satisfaction, as the BIRG state itself could be considered
more a sense of pride. Mahony et al. (2000) studies undergraduate students to examine
BIRGing and CORFing tendencies and found that spectators were more likely to BIRG
and be fans of winning teams. One of the few researchers to apply these concepts to
professional sports, End (2001) applied the theories of BIRGing and CORFing to NFL
fans on the Internet. His results indicated that fans do use the Internet to publicly relate to
an NFL team, and that this use increases with teams that show consistent success during
the season and overall success, especially in the post-season. Research further notes that
fans often attempt to protect their identity by ‘blasting’ fans of unsuccessful opponents
(End, 2001; Cialdini & Richardson, 1980).
Conclusion
Fandom is both a public and private experience, and the two types of identity
explored above contribute equally to both of these experiences. Individuals tend to
incorporate both public and private fandom from each level when creating and
maintaining a fan identity. Although these levels were explored in the social science
literature with regard to sports, they are not all examined in terms of fandom. It is
important to note here that while both of these identity factors have unique contributions
to identity creation and maintenance, they also work together to create a complete
identity.
While the sociology and social psychology of sport is now beginning to grow and
expand, it is important not to ignore fandom, which is increasingly emerging in the social
science literature. This article is only a small portion of the available literature, and yet is
a vital link between sport studies and fandom research. Perhaps more importantly, this
theoretical literature review explores sport and fandom from a social psychological and
identity theory perspective. Future research should continue along these lines, in the
hopes of bringing other aspects of social psychology into sport and fandom studies.
9
References
Abrams, D. & Hogg, M. Eds. (1990). Social Identity Theory: Constructive and
Critical Advances. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Allison, M. (1979). The Game: A Participant Observation Study. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 2, 93-102.
Anderson, D. (1979). Sports Spectatorship: An Appropriation of Identity or
Appraisal of Self? Review of Sport and Leisure 4, 115-127.
Aveni, A. (1977). The Not-So-Lonely Crown: Friendship Groups in Collective
Behaviors”. Sociometry, 40, 96-99.
Banks, D. (1993). Tribal Names and Mascots in Sports. Journal of Sports and Social
Issues, 17, 5-8.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Boire, J. (1980). Collective Behavior in Sport. Review of Sport and Leisure, 25, 245.
Bordieu, P. (1994). How Can One be a Sports Fan? In S. During (Ed.) The Cultural
Studies Reader, (pp. 339-355). New York, NY: Routledge.
Borgatta, E. & Borgatta, M., Eds. (1992). Encyclopedia of Sociology. New York:
MacMillian Publishers.
Branscombe, N., & Wann, D. (1991a). The Positive Social and Self-Concept
Consequences of Sports Team Identification. Journal of Sports and Social Issues, 15,
115-127.
Branscombe, N., & Wann, D. (1992). Role of Identification with a Group, Arousal,
Categorization Processes and Self-Esteem in Sports Spectator Aggression. Human
Relations, 45, 1013-1033.
Burke, P. (1991). Identity Processes and Social Stress. American Sociological
Review, 56, 836-849.
Chorbajian, L. (1978). The Social Psychology of American Males and Spectator
Sports. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 165-175.
Ciadini, R., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R.
(1976). Basking in Reflected Glory: Three (Football) Field Studies. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375.
10
Deegan, M. & Stein, M. (1978). American Drama and Ritual: Nebraska Football.
International Review of Sociology, 13, 31-42.
Dietz-Uhler, B., Harrick, E., End, C. & Jacquemotte, L. (2000). Sex Differences in
Sport Fan Behavior and Reasons for Being a Sports Fan. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23,
219-231.
Eastmen, S. & Riggs, K. (1994). Televised Sports and Ritual: Fan Experiences.
Sociology of Sport Journal, 11, 249-274.
End, C. (2001). An Examination of NFL Fans’ Computer Mediated BIRGing.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 162-181.
Fiske, J. (1992). The Cultural Economy of Fandom. In L. Lewis (Ed.) The Adoring
Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, (30-49). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gantz, W. & Wenner, L. (1995). Fanship and the Television Sports Viewing
Experience. Sociology of Sports Journal, 12, 56-74.
Giuliano, T., Popp, K. & Knight, J. (2000). Football versus Barbies: Childhood Play
Activities as predictors of Sport Participation by Women. Sex Roles, 42, 159-181.
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Hirt, E., Zillman, D., Erickson, G., and Kennedy, C. (1992). The Costs and Benefits
of Allegiance: Changes in Fans Self-ascribed Competencies after Team Victory versus
Team Defeat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 724-738.
Hocking, J. (1982). Sports and Spectators: Intra-audience Effects. Journal of
Communication, 32, 100-108
Hogg, M., Terry, D. & White, K. (1995). A Tale of Two Theories: A Critical
Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly,
58, 255-269.
Howard, G. (1912). Social Psychology of the Spectator. American Journal of
Sociological, 18, 33-50.
Jenkins, R. (1996). Social Identity. New York: Routeledge.
Jensen, J. (1992). Fandom as Pathology; The Consequences of Characterization. In
L. Lewis, (Ed.) The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, (pp. 9-29). New
York, NY: Routledge.
11
Jones, I. (1997a). The Origin and Maintenance of Sports Fan Identification: A
Response to Wann, et al. (1996). Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 257-258.
Jones, J. (2001). More Americans are Fans of Pro Football than any Other Sport”.
The Gallup Organization. Retrieved July 31, 2001 from the Gallup Organization. Web
site: http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010420b.asp.
Katz, D. (1995). Welcome to the Electronic Age. Sports Illustrated Web Page.
Retrieved August 16, 2002 from the MIT Media Lab. Web site:
http://www.white.media.mit.edu/~intille/st/electronic-arena.html.
Levy, L. (1989). A Study of Sports Crown Behavior: The Case of the Great Pumpkin
Incident. Journal of Sports and Social Issues, 13, 69-91.
Lewis, M. (2001). Franchise Relocation and Fan Allegiance. Journal of Sport and
Social Issues, 25, 6-19.
Lindsay, A. (2000). Our Team, Our Name, Our Colors: The Trademark Rights of
Cities in Team Name Ownership. Whittier Law Review, 21, 915-961.
Madrigal, R. (1995). Cognitive and Affective Determinants of Fan Satisfaction with
Sporting Event Attendance. Journal of Leisure Research, 27, 205-227.
Mahony, D., Howard, D. & Madrigal, R. 2000. BIRGing and CORFing Behaviors by
Sport Spectators: High Self Monitors versus Low Self-Monitors. International Sports
Journal, 4, 87-106.
Mann, L. (1989). Sports Crowds and the Collective Behavior Perspective. In J.
Goldstein, (Ed.) Sport, Games and Play: Social and Psychological Viewpoints, (pp. 229327) Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Earlbaum.
McCall, G. & Simmons, J.L. 1966. Identities and Interactions. New York: The Free
Press.
Melnick, M. 1993. Searching for Sociability in the Stands: A Theory of Sports
Spectating. Journal of Sport Management, 7, 44-60.
Miller, S. (1976). Personality Correlates of Football Fandom. Journal of Human
Behavior, 13, 7-13.
Pooley, J. (1978). The Sport Fan: A Social Psychology of Misbehavior. Sociology of
Sport Monograph Series, Calgary: CAPHER
Schneider, J. & Eitzen, D. (1983). The Structure of Sport and Participant Violence.
Arena Review, 7, 1-16.
12
Shank, M. & Beasley, F. (1998). Fan or Fanatic: Refining a Measure of Sports
Involvement. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21, 435-450.
Sloan, L. 1989. The Motives of Sports Fans. In J. Goldstein (Ed.) Sport, Games and
Play: Social and Psychological Viewpoints, (pp. 175-226) Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence
Earlbaum.
Smith, G. (1988). The Noble Sports Fan. Journal of Sports and Social Issues, 12, 5465.
Smith, M. (1979). Getting Involved in Sport: Sex Differences. International Review
of the Sociology of Sport, 14, 93-101.
Snow, D. & Oliver, P. (1995). Social Movements and Collective behavior: Social
Psychological Dimensions and Considerations. In K. Cook, G. Fine & J. House (Eds.)
Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives, (pp. 571-600). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Snyder, C., Lassegard, M. & Ford, C. (1986). Distancing After Group Success and
Failure: Basking in Reflected Glory and Cutting off Reflective Failure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 382-388.
Spinrad, W. The Function of Spectator Sports. In G. Luschen and G. Sage (Eds)
Handbook of Social Science of Sport. Champagne , IL: Stipes. 1981.
Stets, J. & Burke, P. (2000). Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 63, 224-237.
Strauss, A. (1959). Mirrors and Masks: The Search for Identity. San Francisco: The
Sociology Press.
Stryker, S. (1968). Identity Salience and Role Performance: The Relevance of
Symbolic Interaction Theory for Family Research. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
30, 558-564.
Thoits, P. & Virshup, L. (1997). Me’s and We’s: Forms and Functions of Social
Identities. In R. Ashmore and L. Jussim (Eds) Self and Identity: Fundamental Issues (pp.
106-133). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wann, D. (1993). Aggression Among Highly Identified Spectators as a Function of
the Need to Maintain a Positive Social Identity. Journal of Sports and Social Issues, 17,
134-143.
Wann, D. (1995). Preliminary Validation of the Sport Fan Motivation Scale. Journal
of Sports and Social Issues, 19, 377-396.
13
Wann, D., & Branscombe, N. (1990). Die-Hard and Fair Weather Fans: Effects of
Identification on BIRGing and CORFing Tendencies. Journal of Sports and Social Issues,
14, 103-117.
Wann, D., & Dolan, T. (1994a). Influence of Spectator’s Identification on Evaluation
of Past, Present and Future Performance of a Sports Team Perceptual and Motor Skills.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 547-552.
Wann, D., & Dolan T. (1994b). Attributions of Highly Identified Sports Spectators.
Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 783-792.
Wann, D., & Dolan, T. (1994c). “Spectators’ Evaluations of Rival and Fellow Fans.
The Psychological Record, 44, 351-359.
Wann, D., Royalty, J. & Roberts, A. (2000). The Self-Presentation of Sport Fans:
Investigating the Importance of Team Identification and Self-Esteem. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 23,198-206.
Wann, D., & Schrader, M. (1996). An Analysis of the Stability of Sport Team
Identification. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 322.
Wann, D., Tucker, K., & Schrader, M. (1996). An Exploratory Examination of the
Factors Influencing the Origination, Continuation and Cessation of Identification with
Sports Teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 995-1001.
Wann, D., Melnick, M., Russell, G., & Page, D. (2001). Sports Fans: The
Psychology and Social Impact of Spectators. New York, NY: Routeledge.
Zillman, D, Bryant, J. & Sapolsky, N. (1989). Enjoyment from Sports Spectatorship.
In J. Goldstein (Ed.) Sport, Games and Play, (pp. 241-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence
Earlbaum.
14